Author
Topic: Global Warming and the SCOTUS (Read 4129 times)

understudy, hate to tell you buddy, but your grasp of history and the intent of the founders for this country and it's government is lacking.

most of the agencies and departments that you listed should not exist. most of what they do, the federal government has no business doing.

the government description of the job of the courts is fine. it is not the job of the SCOTUS to do those things. they have (should have) a very small and narrow job. their job is to make sure that the laws are not interfering with the constitutional rights of the people. there are very few cases that fall under that job description. most cases should be heard and handled at the state level and that's the end of it. instead, the supreme court is considered the court of last resort for all cases. they were never intended to be that.

there is a book that i have on my library list and have not read yet called "The Constitution in Exile" by Judge Napolitano. yes, he's a fox consultant, but i have heard him speak and he won't offend you liberals :-). a friend read it and said it take you step by step through the changes brought about by activist judges. how we got from a simple constitution with a limited central government to the alphabet soup of agencies with so much power over all we do.

i'm not sure why you threw the 14th in there, but it should have kept kerry out of office and certainly kept him from running for prez!

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

understudy, hate to tell you buddy, but your grasp of history and the intent of the founders for this country and it's government is lacking.

The same could be said about you. I have cited my sources, backed my opinion with court rulings and law. You may not like my sources but they are legitimate.

Quote

most of the agencies and departments that you listed should not exist. most of what they do, the federal government has no business doing.

Yet many have been around for over a hundred years in many cases. And under your argument maybe we could get rid of Homeland Security.

Quote

the government description of the job of the courts is fine. it is not the job of the SCOTUS to do those things. they have (should have) a very small and narrow job. their job is to make sure that the laws are not interfering with the constitutional rights of the people. there are very few cases that fall under that job description. most cases should be heard and handled at the state level and that's the end of it. instead, the supreme court is considered the court of last resort for all cases. they were never intended to be that.

The SCOTUS is the ultimate branch of the judical leg of government. You can't seperate it from other courts. Jurisdiction. According to the Constitution (Art. III, Â§2): "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Appellate jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Supreme Court by various statutes, under the authority given Congress by the Constitution. The basic statute effective at this time in conferring and controlling jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be found in 28 U. S. C. Â§1251 et seq., and various special statutes.

That is from the SCOTUS website.How does Massachusetts v. EPA not apply?

Quote

there is a book that i have on my library list and have not read yet called "The Constitution in Exile" by Judge Napolitano. yes, he's a fox consultant, but i have heard him speak and he won't offend you liberals :-). a friend read it and said it take you step by step through the changes brought about by activist judges. how we got from a simple constitution with a limited central government to the alphabet soup of agencies with so much power over all we do.

i'm not sure why you threw the 14th in there, but it should have kept kerry out of office and certainly kept him from running for prez!

You are not reading my posts clearly if you do understand why the 14 amendment is mentioned. Again I am not a liberal.

Sincerely,Brendhan

Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible

KathyP- I must respectfully, but strenously, disagree w/ one assertion you have made. You believe the federal government should not be in many areas they are presently engaged. I agree- but w/ one very important issue. The environment.Why? Because your pollution doesn't stay in your yard. I live in New Jersey( no jokes guys!LOL) and I am stuck not only w/ air pollution made by my state, but every state west of me-which is all. The fisherman in New Orleans has to deal w/ fish dead zones b/c of farmers in Iowa. Every state on the Mississipi could just go to its most southern portion on the river and dump its waste into the next state. Its a huge problem that needs a comprehensive approach. Fundamentally, this can only happen at the federal level. Mostly, my point was that courts have an ebb and flow, just like society. The framers never wanted an efficient federal government. They wanted a government constantly at odds w/ each branch. These issues of interpretation existed the day after the constituion was ratified, have continued and will continue. They are cyclical. Many of the judges you rail about will reach retirement and soon be gone. The conservative jurists appointed by Bush will be here for decades more, and some day people will be railing about how they are out of touch w/ reality, and need to be replaced. And so it goes...That is the beauty of our democracy.

Logged

"The more complex the Mind, the Greater the need for the simplicity of Play".

I also don't think the framers had all the fraud and waste of this government in mind!i also don't think they saw the extent of career politicians running the country.

Meanwhile one of the reasons George Washington agreed to fight with the colonies is because of corruption within the British government. I think the founding fathers were very aware of corruption issues and career politicians. The Lords of England had their political power from birth and due to bloodline. We still hold elections. Fair or not we still hold them.

Sincerely,Brendhan

Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible

Meanwhile one of the reasons George Washington agreed to fight with the colonies is because of corruption within the British government. I think the founding fathers were very aware of corruption issues and career politicians. The Lords of England had their political power from birth and due to bloodline. We still hold elections. Fair or not we still hold them.Sincerely,Brendhan

Oh pleeeeaaseeee.. GW was basically a rich land owner who hated having to pay taxes which were imposed by the British to pay for the cost of defending the colony during the 7 year war. His initial stance had nothing to do with corruption. He just hated having to pay taxes.. and look how it has all turned out, we now have a 5 million page tax law which helps fund foreign governments to wage war against other countries, fund foreign aid, pay for projects that should have nothing to do with federal tax income etc..

I agree with Kathy.. our federal government has no business being involved in most of what they do..

Meanwhile one of the reasons George Washington agreed to fight with the colonies is because of corruption within the British government. I think the founding fathers were very aware of corruption issues and career politicians. The Lords of England had their political power from birth and due to bloodline. We still hold elections. Fair or not we still hold them.Sincerely,Brendhan

Oh pleeeeaaseeee.. GW was basically a rich land owner who hated having to pay taxes which were imposed by the British to pay for the cost of defending the colony during the 7 year war. His initial stance had nothing to do with corruption. He just hated having to pay taxes.. and look how it has all turned out, we now have a 5 million page tax law which helps fund foreign governments to wage war against other countries, fund foreign aid, pay for projects that should have nothing to do with federal tax income etc..

I agree with Kathy.. our federal government has no business being involved in most of what they do..

Oh there was more than enough blame to go around. Whiney colonist, corrupt british merchants and officals.

Sincererly,Brendhan

Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible

Since so many have mentioned that the federal government is involved in to many issues, let's look at some of them I posted.Bureau of Engraving and Printing prints money. Money that can be used across any of the 50 states and territories. The states use to have their own currency but discrepencies in the value of each states money was a constant issue.

Central Intelligence Agency is a intellegence agency. So each state should have their own spy agency and they can spy on each state too.

Federal Trade Commission was designed to prevent unfair business practices. This agency was created because of abuses by monopolies. The states have their own set of consumer protections and they vary from state to state. One of the items under the FTC is the United States National Do Not Call Registry. So that solicitors from one state calling to another state or within the state cannot call you without your permission.

General Accounting Office studies how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. It investigates how congress spends it's money and is actually doing with it's money what it is suppose to do. Several states have their own version of this.

Federal Emergency Management Agency is tasked with responding to all aspects of natural and manmade disasters. The federal government has been helping in this manner in some form or another since the 1800's.

United States Patent and Trademark Office provides patent and trademark protection to inventors and businesses for their inventions and corporate and product identification. They have been doing this since 1791. As a federal power this is one of the earliest. this way the states can't say we choose not to recognize an invention and pay the royalities due.

Social Security was brought about during the depression when the poverty rate among seniors was over 50%.

The U S. Food and Drug Administration is a scientific, regulatory, and public health agency. States exercised the principal control over domestically produced and distributed foods and drugs in the 19th century, control that was markedly inconsistent from state to state. If we go back to that I would love to see the drug traffic that came about because of that.

United States Forest Service was created in response to Timber Culture Act of 1873 (allowing title to land to anyone planting trees) had resulted in fraud. Scientists and the American Forestry Association advocated better management of the nation's forest reserves. The Forest Reserve Act of 1891 had mixed purposes -- to protect watersheds from erosion and flooding, and to preserve the nation's timber supply from over exploitation. So the states would let the forests be decimated.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service was created for similar reasons as the USFS. Because the states were letting the fishing supplies be depleted.

United States Marshals Service from the history. When George Washington set up his first administration and the first Congress began passing laws, both quickly discovered an inconvenient gap in the constitutional design of the government. It had no provision for a regional administrative structure stretching throughout the country. Both the Congress and the executive branch were housed at the national capitol. No agency was established or designated to represent the federal government's interests at the local level. The need for a regional organization quickly became apparent. Congress and the President solved part of the problem by creating specialized agencies, such as customs and revenue collectors, to levy the tariffs and taxes. Yet, there were numerous other jobs that needed to be done. The only officers available to do them were the Marshals and their Deputies.

And while many of the agencies may have lost site of their orginal intent and become so burecratic that they don't function efficently. The original reason behind them was to fill a void that needed a function. But if you actually looked at many of the agencies you would find how many have been around since before the civil war and were part of the very early history of the United states and made by the founding fathers. back when state rights were a big issue. The problem was how does a federal governement deal with a state that is poorly handling an issue that affects it's citizens and those in other states.

The EPA v Mass. is again an example of that. States rights before the civil war were not suppose to infringe the rights of the citizens in that state or any other state. While the states had more autonomy in ages past the issues than and now were not allowed to conflict with the idea of this being a free country.

I am not saying that the federal government is an all good thing, but I understand the idea behind some of the actions it has taken. If you think that there aren't issues with state government still ask a NY cop how he feels about Virginia's gun laws.

Sincerely,Brendhan

Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible

Government serves a purpose, but many want it to go too far nowadays, they want to take far too much care of me and mine. That's the bottom line point, Brendhan. Personal responsibility should take precedence over government 'coddling' of all kinds.

This caught my eye:

Quote

If you think that there aren't issues with state government still ask a NY cop how he feels about Virginia's gun laws.

Where gun laws are reasonable (read non-intrusive to Second Amendment rights) crime goes down. That's a fact, look up the FBI statistics if you don't believe me. As a matter of fact I'll dig around and post them later on this afternoon.

understudy. most of the organizations you have listed should not exist. because of broad interpretation by the courts, they are allowed. the provision most commonly used to allow more government control is the "interstate commerce clause", which isn't really a clause but one of the enumerations of governments job in the preamble.

broad interpretation of the constitution is judicial activism. it allows things like federal regulation of guns, etc. it allows creation of agencies and programs like SSI and medicare. It allows for the formation of an agency like FEMA, which is probably the best example off the top of my head, that should not exist.

common currency, defense, etc. do fall under the jobs of the feds. most of the other things you listed do not.

this is the difference between those who are constructionist, and those who believe the Constitution is a "living document".

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....